Saves The Day is making a new album and we want you to be involved. You guys have always been the driving force for us to make music. It's your spirit that we drink in and turn into songs. You are our blood. [...]

So we're trying a new thing. It's always been about us - you and the band. Now, we're making this album ourselves and we're inviting you in on the process. We want you in at the start.

The way it works: you make a pledge and we do something cool. We've got T-shirts and downloads and all the standards but we're really excited about some of the other ideas we have. Our goal was to come up with pledges that were unique and meaningful.

You can see all the details here. Any pledge will get you an instant download of the new demo track "Ain't No Kind of Love". Of note, the band is donating 5% of any money raised after the goal is reached to Occupy Sandy.The band last released 2011's Daybreak and recently posted their Misfitscover of "Skulls."

Other bands that have used Pledge Music include Gang of Four, Ben Folds Five and Coheed and Cambria. Do you have experience with Pledge Music? Do you think it's better or just a more music niche-related version of Kickstarter? Are you pledging for this project? What project would you pledge for?

Sure I do. In the long history of music, it has only been about 60 years or so, from maybe the 1930's to the 90's that most musicians could expect to make a living. That includes about, I don't know, a thousands years before then that musicians were basically seen as court jesters, at best.

I love music, but be realistic. It is a hobbie career for all but the most talented .01% or for those with a decent voice and physical attractiveness in the .01% range

Don't think of it as panhandling. For $10 you get a copy of the new album - it's a pre-order that pays for the recording of the album. I don't see what the big deal is. Oh, and how bad is it for 50 of your friends to spend $100 to have Saves The Day play in your living room? We, the consumers, have created this market environment. If you don't want bands to panhandle, go listen to Taylor Swift as she is a successful commercial artist.

You mad? I was merely making an observation. Yes, this is essentially a call for charity with palms wide open- in other words, panhandling.

I wouldn't spend $100 to have any band play in my living room (possible exception: 1972's Black Sabbath). How is that a better model that you and fifty of your friends paying $20 or so for a concert ticket? The fact that it's going to happen in your living room?

I think everyone would agree that having a band they like play in their living room for 50 people is worth $100 over the $20 you get for a concert ticket with 50 of your friends. The fact that you are dropping '72 Black Sabbath as the "only band" you would do this for leads me to believe that you would like to give everyone else the impression that you have such a sophisticated musical palet and you must really know your stuff. Maybe if Black Sabbath would provide a kickstarter for the drummer to actually join the band you could make it happen.

Claiming Sabbath as a "sophisticated musical palet(te)" is hardly original. I'm just a fan. Also, present day, original line-up Sabbath wouldn't be welcomed in my home. I'd kickstart a time machine to bring over 1972 Sabbath.

I can think of at least two dozen bands that I would gladly pay $100 to play in my living room. That's like a dream come true. It takes the comeraderie and intimacy of a small-venue concert to a whole new level. You get to be right there with the band. You can choose to watch the band with your friends instead of with the ninja-kicking scenesters that you'd see at a normal show. You can partake in illegal activities at the show. You can presumably hang out with the band before and after the show. I mean, the list goes on and on, really.

The biggest problem would be the short amount of time before the show is shut down by the cops. Next biggest: the mess. I'm serious when I say that I wouldn't want any band performing in my home. That's what venues are for-- that and keeping more money in my bank account.

I've played a show in a living room before, and even though it was packed, I didn't notice much of a mess. And the cops didn't even show up until 2AM, just as we were packing the van. It really depends on the neighbours.

Both non-issues for me: my apartment is always messy as hell and I live on Frat Row, where loud-ass parties til 2am are the norm and the police never show their faces unless they get called. Different values for different lifestyles, I guess.

..HAMMER? I DON'T NEED A FUCKING HAMMER! I'VE ALREADY GOT 3! GOD!!! AND A FUCKING PRICETAG?! ARE YOU ASKING FOR 8 DOLLARS FOR THIS HAMMER? FUCKING PANHANDLER!!

Because it's pretty much what you're doing right now..

..Or no, right now, you're in the phase of going to the complain department, discussing stuff like "Hey, listen, I really don't need a new hammer. I've already got 3 of them at home and I am not planning to get a new home to store hammers. I bought hammers because I needed them at the time and they're not taking up more space so far, so hey - I'd rather keep my money than be buying this fucking hammer.

Very conflicted about this. I feel like this is a band that doesn't exactly need money from their fans to make a record. I know for a fact that they have their own home studio, so it's not like they need cash to go rent a studio and such. I've seen many people on youtube make quality recordings of songs using only Logic, Reason, or what have you, as well as the instruments they have. No one was giving them money to make those recordings. So why does a band who has been on major labels and has gained a notable following need cash for recording? The only thing I can think of that they would need money for would be for promotion or to cover touring costs. But in terms of recording the album, they have more than enough tools at their disposal.

I think it's great that bands take the studio environment seriously. Yeah, sure, they could just do it by themselves, but I really, really like that most band seem to simply use it as a way to develop their demos and ideas more than they could ever do before. A recording does not a record make.

You see, I'm a... Producer? Engineer? Musician? Non-Commercial Studio Owner? Anti-Purist? Modern Technology Proponent? Whatever. I think it's great that bands don't simply do it like that. I mean, it works for a few particular kinds of acts, but it's not as easy as it being the case for anyone who has played on a few records being able to put out a decent record.

You asked why and I'll give you the answer. Left Brain/Right Brain. Creativity and ideas doesn't always make for a good or even listenable song. I mean, if you've got an agenda of some sort and you can pull it off yourself - DO IT! Do it now. I want to hear a completely uncompromising record assault my ears - but is Saves The Day really that band? The thing is, if they did it, you'd have shoddy drum recordings and tons of delays on the already layered guitars, with the vocals not sitting properly.

The main reason is very simple; Balance. How the hell would an artist be able to balance their own record? It's damn near impossible to, as a song-writer or instrumentalist take a back seat and serve the song. You need a hell of a lot more experience than most bands amass in their lifetime.

A good record doesn't mean a happy band/artist. It means a good record that represents where the band is at while making quite a few compromises to ensure that the general listener doesn't just deem it un-listenable within the first few listens. You want them to at the very least tolerate it until they allow themselves to dig deeper. It's very, very hard to make such a record if it's your own output. You definitely have to be a "master of none"-kind of character with no ego to the point of being able to completely detach your own taste and feelings.

Sure, they could make a record containing a few songs and it'd sound ok - but it wouldn't really be a _great record_.

Remember, you've seen people on youtube do it - You havn't seen people in bands do it, even though a lot of them have been demoing like that for a decade now. I mean, when you here about it, it's people like Foo Fighters, right? Well, I don't have a Neve, a few studers and Butch Vig in my garage - Do you?

Agreed. They could. In fact, it's a pretty popular thing to do right now.

People who didn't really mix records before are now doing it. Everyone from Eskil at Tonteknik (Shape Of Punk To Come), Ed Rose (Coalesce, Get Up Kids etc), Fredrik Nordstrom (At The Gates, In Flames, all that jazz) and even Kurt Ballou is doing it more and more now. They're getting surprisingly cheap too, especially Ed Rose (get at him, bands!).

95% of the problems I addressed would still be there, the band would be even un-happier and the result would be even more of a compromise.

Buuut, who's to say they're not doing exactly that? Do we know? From what I can tell - that's exactly what they seem to be doing and the result can't be phenomenal. It takes _a lot_ to be able to inject the qualities of contrast needed for a record that works on several levels.

I was gonna say pretty much the same thing. To me, ideally, the website should just stop taking donations once they reach their monetary goal. Unless all or at least most of the remaining profits were then turned over to charity, I don't see how they can justify taking in a potentially infinite amount of their fans' money once they've acquired enough money for the album, especially since said album will presumable generate at least a small amount of revenue for the band and they didn't have to pay to record it.

Personally? No, I am not. I believe in just putting the shit out there for free because at least now, you get a cool dude-stamp for doing it and a very small minority will actually go out of their way to support it. I mean, no one asked for me to do what I do, right?

Pledge music is great.
Ginger Wildheart from the Wildhearts ( and friend to lemmy,slash, and many more) recently had huge sucess with a pledge campaign. He set up a target which his fans smashed in 6 hours. The campaign resulted in a triple album (555%) exclusive to pledgers, who then got to chose their favourite tracks for the commercial release. This release (100% ), charted higher in the UK than Rhianna's latest album and won Ginger the Classic rock event of the year award.
He raised a huge amount of money for funding the album, with 10% going to children's charities. major record labels could not match the budget, the fans were involved every step of the way and a great album was produced.
What is there not to like about this system? It's not panhandling, it's taking the music back to the only things that matter - the band and the fans!

who in the absolute fuck still cares about this band? honestly. saw them a couple of years ago because friends bands were opening and it was just depressing. It's Chris with a bunch of young hired musicians plowing through old material.